Chapa gets 5 year ban

[Riot]

Originally Posted by pointman

The problem is that as is the case with virtually everything else you post on this board, your suggestion was plain stupid.

You have a terrible life, having to read other people's opinions that you do not share. Poor, poor you.

Yeah, I'm pretty strongly anti-drug, in the horses and the backstretch. You disagree. I could give a damn.

[Danzig]

there is no legitimate reason for drug testing the jock. what probable cause exists?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

there is no legitimate reason for drug testing the jock. what probable cause exists?

I said I'd make it part of everybody's probation, who was ruled off for five years and wanted back on. No probable cause needed. Just part of the routine to get permitted back at the track for all long-term suspensions. What is a downside?

[Cannon Shell]

Don't jockeys get tested already?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

I said I'd make it part of everybody's probation, who was ruled off for five years and wanted back on. No probable cause needed. Just part of the routine to get permitted back at the track for all long-term suspensions. What is a downside?

i guess i just don't see a connection. if you're ruled off because of drugs, by all means test for it as a requirement for ree-instatement.
otherwise, i see no correlation. the sport needs to do more testing alright...but not of jocks. someone would have to be squeaky clean throughout their suspension if they got caught pulling this type of stunt and hoped to be able to ride again.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Riot

I said I'd make it part of everybody's probation, who was ruled off for five years and wanted back on. No probable cause needed. Just part of the routine to get permitted back at the track for all long-term suspensions. What is a downside?

There is this pesky document called the Constitution of the United States of America. It requires that government cannot conduct searches and seize evidence on less than probable cause. For this reason, probable casue is needed.

Your ludicrous attempt to again shift the issue and infer that I somehow not anti-drug has absolutely no basis in fact.

Chuck, my understanding is that the tests of jocks is random. If that is the case, the tests are permitted since they are random and not targeting a specific individual, much like checkpoints on roads.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by pointman

There is this pesky document called the Constitution of the United States of America. It requires that government cannot conduct searches and seize evidence on less than probable cause. For this reason, probable casue is needed.

Small technicality to your argument, tracks are not "the government".

If everybody has the same penalty, as I was describing, it's fair under your (obtuse) point. As proven by the multitude of private companies who already require drug testing on a regular basis.

[PatCummings]

Originally Posted by Riot

Small technicality to your argument, tracks are not "the government".

If everybody has the same penalty, as I was describing, it's fair under your (obtuse) point. As proven by the multitude of private companies who already require drug testing on a regular basis.

Please at least admit that you see the disconnect you are fostering, that a 5-year suspension for using a buzzer and a drug test to get back into racing are not directly-related.

It's not like Chapa was a starving journeyman. He was actually moderately successful. It just takes a little research to see that he made a decent living. His drug problem would have to be pretty severe in order to use a buzzer for income. We're talking about a $15,000/month habit. Dude wouldn't be able to stand doing that much yay.

What we're dealing with here is an uninformed blowhard know-it-all pontificating per usual. Just insult the monster.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by PatCummings

Please at least admit that you see the disconnect you are fostering, that a 5-year suspension for using a buzzer and a drug test to get back into racing are not directly-related.

I never said they were directly related. The rocket scientists here made that leap all by themselves.

I said that trying to come back after five year suspensions - which are essentially equal to, "nice to know ya, have fun finding a new vocation in your different life" - should be a strict probation.

And yeah, I would include drug testing every 3 months as part of it. For everyone who wants a license reinstated: trainers, exercise, jocks, all of them.

They run the felony search again when one reapplies, but I see nothing wrong with making sure that someone who has done something so heinous that they were banned from the sport for 5 years is crystal clean on all accounts if they try to return to it.

Yes, that is apparently a really, really amazingly complex-stupid-weird-crazy idea to some of you. Gasp.

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by Riot

Small technicality to your argument, tracks are not "the government".

Would it be the tracks or the state regulatory bodies requiring the testing? The reason I'm asking is that earlier you wrote, "And yeah, I would include drug testing every 3 months as part of it. For everyone who wants a license reinstated . . . ." Licenses are generally issued by the regulatory bodies.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by DaTruth

Would it be the tracks or the state regulatory bodies requiring the testing? The reason I'm asking is that earlier you wrote, "And yeah, I would include drug testing every 3 months as part of it. For everyone who wants a license reinstated . . . ." Licenses are generally issued by the regulatory bodies.

Strange ask. Gee, why would you ask that? I'm sure you know the tracks help determine, with the governor (who they owe), who is appointed to the state racing boards, which via input from the track owners determines regulatory action by request via the state legislature in most cases.